IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Lucia Romano, Andrea Manno, Fabrizio Rossi, Francesco Masedu, Margherita Attanasio, Fabio Vistoli, Antonio Giuliani
{"title":"Statistical models versus machine learning approach for competing risks in proctological surgery.","authors":"Lucia Romano, Andrea Manno, Fabrizio Rossi, Francesco Masedu, Margherita Attanasio, Fabio Vistoli, Antonio Giuliani","doi":"10.1007/s13304-025-02109-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Clinical risk prediction models are ubiquitous in many surgical domains. The traditional approach to develop these models involves the use of regression analysis. Machine learning algorithms are gaining in popularity as an alternative approach for prediction and classification problems. They can detect non-linear relationships between independent and dependent variables and incorporate many of them. In our work, we aimed to investigate the potential role of machine learning versus classical logistic regression for the preoperative risk assessment in proctological surgery. We used clinical data from a nationwide audit: the database consisted of 1510 patients affected by Goligher's grade III hemorrhoidal disease who underwent elective surgery. We collected anthropometric, clinical, and surgical data and we considered ten predictors to evaluate model-predictive performance. The clinical outcome was the complication rate evaluated at 30-day follow-up. Logistic regression and three machine learning techniques (Decision Tree, Support Vector Machine, Extreme Gradient Boosting) were compared in terms of area under the curve, balanced accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. In our setting, machine learning and logistic regression models reached an equivalent predictive performance. Regarding the relative importance of the input features, all models agreed in identifying the most important factor. Combining and comparing statistical analysis and machine learning approaches in clinical field should be a common ambition, focused on improving and expanding interdisciplinary cooperation.</p>","PeriodicalId":23391,"journal":{"name":"Updates in Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Updates in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-025-02109-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在许多外科领域,临床风险预测模型无处不在。开发这些模型的传统方法包括使用回归分析。作为预测和分类问题的替代方法,机器学习算法越来越受欢迎。它们可以检测自变量和因变量之间的非线性关系,并将其中的许多关系纳入其中。在我们的工作中,我们旨在研究机器学习与经典逻辑回归在直肠外科手术术前风险评估中的潜在作用。我们使用了一项全国性审计的临床数据:数据库包括 1510 名接受择期手术的戈利格 III 级痔疮患者。我们收集了人体测量、临床和手术数据,并考虑了十项预测因素来评估模型的预测性能。临床结果是 30 天随访时评估的并发症发生率。我们比较了逻辑回归和三种机器学习技术(决策树、支持向量机、极端梯度提升)的曲线下面积、平衡准确性、灵敏度和特异性。在我们的研究中,机器学习和逻辑回归模型的预测性能相当。关于输入特征的相对重要性,所有模型在确定最重要的因素方面都达成了一致。在临床领域结合和比较统计分析与机器学习方法应该是一个共同的目标,重点是改善和扩大跨学科合作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Statistical models versus machine learning approach for competing risks in proctological surgery.

Clinical risk prediction models are ubiquitous in many surgical domains. The traditional approach to develop these models involves the use of regression analysis. Machine learning algorithms are gaining in popularity as an alternative approach for prediction and classification problems. They can detect non-linear relationships between independent and dependent variables and incorporate many of them. In our work, we aimed to investigate the potential role of machine learning versus classical logistic regression for the preoperative risk assessment in proctological surgery. We used clinical data from a nationwide audit: the database consisted of 1510 patients affected by Goligher's grade III hemorrhoidal disease who underwent elective surgery. We collected anthropometric, clinical, and surgical data and we considered ten predictors to evaluate model-predictive performance. The clinical outcome was the complication rate evaluated at 30-day follow-up. Logistic regression and three machine learning techniques (Decision Tree, Support Vector Machine, Extreme Gradient Boosting) were compared in terms of area under the curve, balanced accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. In our setting, machine learning and logistic regression models reached an equivalent predictive performance. Regarding the relative importance of the input features, all models agreed in identifying the most important factor. Combining and comparing statistical analysis and machine learning approaches in clinical field should be a common ambition, focused on improving and expanding interdisciplinary cooperation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Updates in Surgery
Updates in Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
208
期刊介绍: Updates in Surgery (UPIS) has been founded in 2010 as the official journal of the Italian Society of Surgery. It’s an international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the surgical sciences. Its main goal is to offer a valuable update on the most recent developments of those surgical techniques that are rapidly evolving, forcing the community of surgeons to a rigorous debate and a continuous refinement of standards of care. In this respect position papers on the mostly debated surgical approaches and accreditation criteria have been published and are welcome for the future. Beside its focus on general surgery, the journal draws particular attention to cutting edge topics and emerging surgical fields that are publishing in monothematic issues guest edited by well-known experts. Updates in Surgery has been considering various types of papers: editorials, comprehensive reviews, original studies and technical notes related to specific surgical procedures and techniques on liver, colorectal, gastric, pancreatic, robotic and bariatric surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信